review-code
Skill2.1k starsChanged 7 months agoMITArchived repositoryView on GitHub
Multi-dimensional code review with structured reports. Analyzes correctness, readability, performance, security, testing, and architecture. Triggers on "review code", "code review", "审查代码", "代码审查".
70 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Moriarty33/jb-kaizentheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- serionist/claude-session-restoretheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- GeiserX/sstacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- GeiserX/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- GeiserX/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- 0xdeafcafe/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use audit-test-suite, change-data-safely and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
yaohuangguanSkillaudit-test-suite
Find where an existing test suite is weak and decide what to test next, ranked by risk. Use this when asked to add missing tests, find gaps, raise coverage, assess test quality or see which areas are thin, even if the request only mentions a coverage percentage.
Also in 3 projects that use this
yaohuangguanSkillchange-data-safely
Change a database schema or stored data without breaking running code or losing data. Use this for any migration, new or changed column, backfill, bulk update, delete, index, or change to a stored format, including in small projects. Data mistakes are often impossible to undo.
Also in 3 projects that use this
mrdulasolutionsSkillclear-caches
Clear extension caches, analysis data, and drafts from the database. Use when testing sender lookups, analysis, or draft generation from a clean state.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GeiserXSkilldocs-loop
Use when the user asks to audit docs, check documentation for stale claims, or verify docs against the code.
Also in 3 projects that use this
mrdulasolutionsSkillelectron-devtools-testing
Test the Electron app interactively using Chrome DevTools Protocol. Use when the user asks to test, verify, or interact with the running app via browser automation.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GeiserXSkillfull-loop
Drive a repository to done with sergio-loop, then keep improving it with refine-loop at a descending theta. Use only when the user explicitly invokes full-loop.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from mrdulasolutions
- +4 more from GeiserX
- +1 more from yaohuangguan
Other versions70 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- zhao-wuyan/ccw-command-explorer★ 45100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 69
- penpot/penpot★ 62ksame name
- pnpm/pnpm★ 37ksame name
- verdaccio/verdaccio★ 18ksame name
- NVIDIA-NeMo/DataDesigner★ 2.4ksame name
- OpenAEV-Platform/openaev★ 1.8ksame name
- bazel-contrib/rules_python★ 692same name
- wataru-maeda/react-native-boilerplate★ 521same name
- ankitvgupta/exo★ 494same name
- ankitvgupta/mail-app★ 494same name
- ninehills/skills★ 280same name
59 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- brainstormSkill
- ccw-chainSkill
- ccw-helpSkill
- delegation-checkSkill
- investigateSkill
- issue-manageSkill
- memory-captureSkill
- memory-manageSkill
- prompt-generatorSkill
- review-cycleSkill
- security-auditSkill
- shipSkill
- skill-generatorSkill
- skill-iter-tuneSkill
- skill-simplifySkill
- skill-tuningSkill
- spec-generatorSkill
- team-arch-optSkill
- team-brainstormSkill
- team-coordinateSkill
- team-designerSkill
- team-executorSkill
- team-frontend-debugSkill
- team-frontendSkill
- team-interactive-craftSkill
- team-issueSkill
- team-lifecycle-v4Skill
- team-motion-designSkill
- team-perf-optSkill
- team-planexSkill
- team-quality-assuranceSkill
- team-reviewSkill
- team-roadmap-devSkill
- team-tech-debtSkill
- team-testingSkill
- team-uidesignSkill
- team-ui-polishSkill
- team-ultra-analyzeSkill
- team-ux-improveSkill
- team-visual-a11ySkill
- wf-composerSkill
- wf-playerSkill
- workflow-executeSkill
- workflow-lite-executeSkill
- workflow-lite-planSkill
- workflow-lite-test-reviewSkill
- workflow-multi-cli-planSkill
- workflow-planSkill
- workflow-skill-designerSkill
- workflow-tdd-plan-planSkill
- workflow-test-fixSkill
- brainstormSkill
- investigateSkill
- review-cycleSkill
- spec-generatorSkill
- workflow-planSkill
- workflow-tdd-planSkill
- workflow-test-fixSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 58 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 43
Project Context: Run ccw spec load --category review for review standards, checklists, and approval gates.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 58 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review Code
Multi-dimensional code review skill that analyzes code across 6 key dimensions and generates structured review reports with actionable recommendations.
Architecture Overview
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ⚠️ Phase 0: Specification Study (强制前置) │
│ → 阅读 specs/review-dimensions.md │
│ → 理解审查维度和问题分类标准 │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Orchestrator (状态驱动决策) │
│ → 读取状态 → 选择审查动作 → 执行 → 更新状态 │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
┌───────────┼───────────┬───────────┬───────────┐
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ Collect │ │ Quick │ │ Deep │ │ Report │ │Complete │
│ Context │ │ Scan │ │ Review │ │ Generate│ │ │
└─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Review Dimensions │
│ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ │
│ │Correctness│ │Readability│ │Performance│ │ Security │ │
│ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ │
│ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ │
│ │ Testing │ │Architecture│ │
│ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Project Context: Run ccw spec load --category review for review standards, checklists, and approval gates.
Key Design Principles
- 多维度审查: 覆盖正确性、可读性、性能、安全性、测试覆盖、架构一致性六大维度
- 分层执行: 快速扫描识别高风险区域,深入审查聚焦关键问题
- 结构化报告: 按严重程度分类,提供文件位置和修复建议
- 状态驱动: 自主模式,根据审查进度动态选择下一步动作
⚠️ Mandatory Prerequisites (强制前置条件)
⛔ 禁止跳过: 在执行任何审查操作之前,必须完整阅读以下文档。
规范文档 (必读)
| Document | Purpose | Priority |
| specs/review-dimensions.md | 审查维度定义和检查点 | P0 - 最高 |
| specs/issue-classification.md | 问题分类和严重程度标准 | P0 - 最高 |
| specs/quality-standards.md | 审查质量标准 | P1 |
模板文件 (生成前必读)
| Document | Purpose |
| templates/review-report.md | 审查报告模板 |
| templates/issue-template.md | 问题记录模板 |
Execution Flow
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 0: Specification Study (强制前置 - 禁止跳过) │
│ → Read: specs/review-dimensions.md │
│ → Read: specs/issue-classification.md │
│ → 理解审查标准和问题分类 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Action: collect-context │
│ → 收集目标文件/目录 │
│ → 识别技术栈和语言 │
│ → Output: state.context (files, language, framework) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Action: quick-scan │
│ → 快速扫描整体结构 │
│ → 识别高风险区域 │
│ → Output: state.risk_areas, state.scan_summary │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Action: deep-review (per dimension) │
│ → 逐维度深入审查 │
│ → 记录发现的问题 │
│ → Output: state.findings[] │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Action: generate-report │
│ → 汇总所有发现 │
│ → 生成结构化报告 │
│ → Output: review-report.md │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Action: complete │
│ → 保存最终状态 │
│ → 输出审查摘要 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Directory Setup
const timestamp = new Date().toISOString().slice(0,19).replace(/[-:T]/g, '');
const workDir = `.workflow/.scratchpad/review-code-${timestamp}`;
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}"`);
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}/findings"`);Output Structure
.workflow/.scratchpad/review-code-{timestamp}/
├── state.json # 审查状态
├── context.json # 目标上下文
├── findings/ # 问题发现
│ ├── correctness.json
│ ├── readability.json
│ ├── performance.json
│ ├── security.json
│ ├── testing.json
│ └── architecture.json
└── review-report.md # 最终审查报告Review Dimensions
| Dimension | Focus Areas | Key Checks |
| Correctness | 逻辑正确性 | 边界条件、错误处理、null 检查 |
| Readability | 代码可读性 | 命名规范、函数长度、注释质量 |
| Performance | 性能效率 | 算法复杂度、I/O 优化、资源使用 |
| Security | 安全性 | 注入风险、敏感信息、权限控制 |
| Testing | 测试覆盖 | 测试充分性、边界覆盖、可维护性 |
| Architecture | 架构一致性 | 设计模式、分层结构、依赖管理 |
Issue Severity Levels
| Level | Prefix | Description | Action Required |
| Critical | [C] | 阻塞性问题,必须立即修复 | Must fix before merge |
| High | [H] | 重要问题,需要修复 | Should fix |
| Medium | [M] | 建议改进 | Consider fixing |
| Low | [L] | 可选优化 | Nice to have |
| Info | [I] | 信息性建议 | For reference |
Reference Documents
| Document | Purpose |
| phases/orchestrator.md | 审查编排器 |
| phases/state-schema.md | 状态结构定义 |
| phases/actions/action-collect-context.md | 收集上下文 |
| phases/actions/action-quick-scan.md | 快速扫描 |
| phases/actions/action-deep-review.md | 深入审查 |
| phases/actions/action-generate-report.md | 生成报告 |
| phases/actions/action-complete.md | 完成审查 |
| specs/review-dimensions.md | 审查维度规范 |
| specs/issue-classification.md | 问题分类标准 |
| specs/quality-standards.md | 质量标准 |
| templates/review-report.md | 报告模板 |
| templates/issue-template.md | 问题模板 |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

